TRIAL CHAMBER I, SECTION A, (“Trial Chamber”) of the International Tribunal
for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991
(“Tribunal”),

HAVING HEARD the accused Vidoje Blagojevic (“Accused”) on the issue
of assignment of counsel at the Pre-Trial Conference held on 5 May 2003,

NOTING that Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the
Tribunal (“Rules”) provides for the appointment of counsel by the Registrar
for a suspect or accused who lacks the means to remunerate such counsel “whenever
the interests of justice so demand”, pursuant to the Directive of Assignment
of Defence Counsel, as amended on 12 July 2002 (“Directive”),

NOTING that Section III of the Directive, and specifically Article
11, provides for the assignment of counsel, and that, pursuant to Article
16(c) of the Directive, “?ign the interests of justice and at the request
of the person assigned as counsel,” co-counsel may be assigned by the Registrar,

NOTING that in accordance with the Directive, the Registrar appointed
Michael Karnavas as lead counsel for the Accused on 31 August 2001, and Suzana
Tomanovic as co-counsel on 25 September 2002,

NOTING that Article 19 (A) of the Directive provides that, in the
interests of justice, the Registrar may: (i) at the request of the accused
or his counsel, withdraw the assignment of counsel; or (ii) at the request
of lead counsel, withdraw the assignment of co-counsel,

NOTING that the Accused first raised complaints about the assignment
of his co-counsel before Trial Chamber II at a Status Conference held on 27
November 2002,1 and that the
issue was further addressed at a motion hearing held in closed session on
27 November 2002,2

NOTING the “Decision on Oral Motion to Replace Co-Counsel,” issued
by Trial Chamber II on 9 December 2002 (“Decision to Replace Co-Counsel”),
in which that Trial Chamber found that: (a) both lead counsel and co-counsel
were assigned by the Registrar in conformity with the Rules of the Tribunal
and the Directive;3 (b) it did
not observe an atmosphere of mistrust between the lead counsel and co -counsel,
but rather found there to be confidence expressed in co-counsel by lead counsel;4 (c) it cannot find that co -counsel is incompetent and
acting in any way contrary to the best interests of her client;5 (d) it is not permissible for an accused to deliberately
destroy the atmosphere of trust and to make unsubstantiated claims that no
co-operation between himself and co-counsel is possible in order to have new
co-counsel appointed;6 (e) the
alleged problems between the Accused and the defence team were based on the
desire of the Accused to have an unknown third person assigned as co-counsel, and not due to any misconduct, incompetence or any conflict of interest
on the part of the co-counsel;7
(f) it cannot identify any ground which would amount to an insufficient atmosphere
of trust between the Accused and the defence team or which would otherwise
show that co-operation between the Accused and his team is no longer possible;8 and (g) no prejudice can be suffered by the Accused by
maintaining Ms. Tomanovic as co-counsel, and that to replace co-counsel at
this point in the proceedings may cause prejudice to the Accused by causing
inter alia a delay in the proceedings and thereby infringe his right
to be tried expeditiously,9

NOTING FURTHER that Trial Chamber II found that no good cause had
been shown to intervene in the Registrar’s decision to appoint Ms. Tomanovic
as co-counsel,10

NOTING that the Accused informed Trial Chamber II at the Status Conference
held on 27 March 2003 that he had an issue that was “still pending” related
to counsel,11 and that the
issue of the assignment of counsel and co-counsel was further addressed at
a hearing held in closed session on 27 March 2003 (“Hearing”),

NOTING that at the Hearing the Accused stated his request that his
co-counsel be replaced,12 and
that the Pre-Trial Judge of Trial Chamber II indicated that the transcript
of the Hearing would be forwarded to Registrar “to find out whether a substitution
should take place,”13

CONSIDERING that at the Hearing, the Accused answered affirmatively
when asked if he did not have trust in his lead counsel based on the fact
that the lead counsel did not elect co-counsel on a consensual basis together
with him, stating “?igt would be correct should the situation as it is now
continue,”14

CONSIDERING that at the Hearing, the Accused answered affirmatively
when asked if he would request a replacement of his lead counsel if the Registrar
would decide that there is no justification for the replacement of his co-counsel,
stating “?tghe answer is yes. I do not hesitate at all,”15

NOTING that, pursuant to the comments of the Accused at the Hearing,
the Pre-Trial Judge of Trial Chamber II affirmed his earlier finding that
it is “for the Registrar to decide on the merits of this request” and that
it was to “first decide on the replacement of Ms. Tomanovic, ?andg in case
there is no such replacement, to decide on the replacement of the entire
team,”16

NOTING the Decision of the Registrar of 8 April 2003 (“Registrar’s
Decision ”), in which he refused to withdraw the assignment of Ms. Tomanovic
as co-counsel and the Accused’s concomitant request to replace his entire
legal defence team, finding that the Accused “has not shown any substantive
grounds relating to the performance or professional ethics of Ms. Tomanovic
justifying a replacement; that no change in circumstances has taken place
since the Trial Chamber’s Decision ?on Replacement of Co-Counselg; and that
to replace co-counsel at this point in the proceedings may cause prejudice
to the accused by having the potential to cause, inter alia, a delay
in the proceedings and thereby adversely affect his right to be tried expeditiously,”

NOTING that Article 19 (F) of the Directive provides that, where
a request for withdrawal, made pursuant to Article 19 (A), has been denied,
the person making the request may seek the President of the Tribunal’s (“President”)
review of the decision of the Registrar within two weeks from the notification
of the decision to him,

NOTING that the translation of the Registrar’s Decision into the
BCS language was completed on 10 April 2003, and that the Registrar’s Decision
was received by the Accused on 10 April 2003,

NOTING that a representative of the Registry/Office of Legal Aid
and Detention Matters (“OLAD”) met with Accused on 14 April 2003 and explained
the Registrar’s Decision to him, including the decision that lead would not
be withdrawn, and advised him of his right to seek the President’s review
of the decision pursuant to Article 19 (F) of the Directive,

NOTING that no request was made to the President to review the Registrar’s
Decision in accordance with Article 19 (F) of the Directive,

NOTING that the Appeals Chamber for the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda (“ICTR”) held that:

in principle, the right to free legal assistance of counsel
does not confer the right to counsel of one’s own choosing. The right to choose
counsel applies only to those accused who can financially bear the costs of
counsel.17

The Appeals Chamber further found that:

[t]o be sure, in practice an indigent accused may choose
from among counsel including [sic] in the list and the Registrar generally
takes into consideration the choice of the accused. Nevertheless, in the
opinion of the Appeals Chamber the Registrar is not necessarily bound by the
wishes of an indigent accused. He has wide discretion, which he exercises
in the interests of justice.18

NOTING that at the Pre-Trial Conference held on 5 May 2003, after the
appearances of defence counsel, including that Mr. Karnavas and Ms. Tomanovic
as lead counsel and co-counsel, respectively, for Mr. Blagojevic, the Accused
stated that he “did not have a lawyer present here today who would represent
[him] as [his] defence counsel,” that the person who introduced himself as the
Accused’s lawyer, namely Mr. Karnavas, “has actually been dismissed by [the
Accused] and is no longer [his] defence counsel,” and that he therefore asked
the Trial Chamber, “as a guarantor and the protector of the rights of the accused”
to protect him “in this sense,”19

NOTING that the Accused stated that he “absolutely [has] no longer
any confidence in Mr. Karnavas and it would be a catastrophe for him to continue
to represent ? the Accusedg in this case,” stating that he did not have any
trust in Mr. Karnavas “due to his actions to date,”20

NOTING that the Accused stated that he could provide the “arguments”
for the loss of trust, but did not provide any concrete or specific reasons
for this loss of confidence or specific actions on the part of Mr. Karnavas
that caused the lack of trust,21

NOTING that the Accused has stated that he does not seek to represent
himself,22

CONSIDERING that the Accused stated that he has not had any communication
with Mr. Karnavas “for more than a month,” 23,
that he does not permit Mr. Karnavas to be involved in the case24
and that he “absolutely refuse[s] any further involvement of [his present defence
team],”25

CONSIDERING that the issue of whether the Accused has access to filings
in this case at this stage is unclear based on his comments at the Pre-Trial
Conference,26

NOTING the comments of the Office of the Prosecutor (“Prosecution”)
on this issue at the Pre-Trial Conference, and specifically the Prosecution’s
concern of a possible conflict of interest between the Accused and his defence
counsel on the issue of appealing a decision related to the assignment of
counsel,27

NOTING the comments of Mr. Karnavas at the Pre-Trial Conference,
in which he stated that he and his co-counsel are prepared for trial, and
that he and co- counsel were both prepared to follow any directions from the
Trial Chamber including the direction to withdraw from the case,28

CONSIDERING that under the Code of Professional Conduct for Counsel
Appearing before the International Tribunal (“Code of Conduct”),29 Article 3 (“Basic Principles”), paragraph (iv) provides
that “counsel have a duty of loyalty to their clients consistent with their
duty to the Tribunal to act with independence in the administration of justice,”

CONSIDERING that Article 8 of the Code of Conduct provides:

Scope of Representation

(A) Counsel shall advise and represent a client until counsel’s
representation is terminated by the client or withdrawn by the Registrar.

(B) When representing a client, counsel shall:

i. Abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives
of representation;

ii. Consult with the client about the means by which those
objectives are to be pursued, but is not bound by the client’s decision;
and

iii. Seek or accept only those instructions which emanate
from the client and which are not given as the result of inducement from
any person, organisation or State.

(C) Counsel shall not advise or assist a client to engage
in conduct which counsel knows is criminal or fraudulent, in breach of the
Statute, the Rules, this Code or any other applicable law and, where counsel
has been assigned to the client, the Directive. However, counsel may discuss
legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may
advise or assist a client in good faith to determine the validity, scope or
meaning of the applicable law.

(B) Subject to leave from the Chamber, if representation
by counsel is to be terminated or withdrawn, counsel shall not do so until
a replacement counsel is engaged by the client or assigned by the Registrar,
or the client has notified the Registrar in writing of his intention to conduct
his own defence.

[…]

CONSIDERING that the basis for action in this matter by a Trial Chamber
rests with its inherent power and duty to guarantee a fair trial and the proper
administration of justice, as set forth in Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute
of the Tribunal,30

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber deems that the issue of assignment
or replacement of counsel, when raised as a matter of procedural fairness
and proper administration of justice, is open to judicial scrutiny; difficulties
relating to the defence of an accused will affect the conduct of a case over
which a Trial Chamber has not only the power but also the duty to regulate
in accordance with the statutory requirements for a fair and expeditious trial;
and that these problems, therefore, are justiciable,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber, as Trial Chamber II has done
in this case, wishes to emphasise that although it considers that it is vested
with the power to review a decision of this type in the interests of justice,
it is not obliged to intervene in every complaint regarding the assignment
of counsel. It recognises that the Registrar has the primary responsibility
in this matter and that, if the Registrar was not properly informed of necessary
facts, he would be entitled to reconsider his previous decision on the basis
of new information hitherto unavailable to him,

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber is responding to the comments
made by the Accused at the Pre-Trial Conference, and particularly, the fact
that there appears to be a breakdown in communication between the Accused
and his defence team based on a lack of trust – for unspecified reasons –
on the part of the Accused,

CONSIDERING that such a breakdown in communication, if it in fact
exists and continues to exist, may impact the rights of the accused, and particularly
the right to prepare ones defence,31

CONSIDERING that at the Pre-Trial Conference, the Trial Chamber indicated
that it may be necessary to appoint independent counsel to consult with the
Accused on the specific matter of the assignment of counsel and the Accused’s
rights in relation to this matter under the Statute, Rules and Directive,
and to advise him on further action, if any, that the Accused may take on
this matter,32

CONSIDERING FURTHER that at the Pre-Trial Conference, the Trial Chamber
indicated that, pursuant to the Registrar’s Decision, the present defence
team will continue to work on behalf of the Accused,33

PURSUANT to Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute of the Tribunal, and
Rule 54 of the Rules of the Tribunal,

HEREBY REQUESTS that the Registrar appoint independent counsel to
advise the Accused, Mr. Vidoje Blagojevic, on his rights in relation to the
assignment of counsel, and assist him in preparing documentation, if any,
that may follow from their consultations on this issue.